FCC confirms resignation of Chairman Julius Genachowski (Updated)

Wall Street Journal reports that the Chairman will call it quits after four years.

UPDATE: The FCC this morning confirmed that Chairman Julius Genachowski will be leaving his position "in the coming weeks." The FCC is holding a planning meeting, and Ars will have more detailed coverage later today.

The Wall Street Journalreported tonight that the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, will announce Friday that he is stepping down from his position. Genachowski was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009. It's not clear yet when his final day will be.

Genachowski was at the helm through an interesting period in the history of the FCC—as connection to the Internet became more of a rule than an exception, Genachowski faced the daunting task of meting out spectrum between telecom providers and public entities, dividing wavelengths and assigning importance to things like wireless networks, TV, GPS devices, “responder” networks for things like 911 calls, and broadcast radio. Genachowski also chaired the FCC as it heard debates over net neutrality, and during the infamous interruption of cell phone service in San Francisco's BART subway during protests in 2011.

The FCC has not issued a comment, but other groups aren't hesitating to hold forth. “Genachowski claimed broadband was his agency's top priority, but he stood by as prices rose and competition dwindled.” Craig Aaron, President and CEO of Free Press, a media and technology advocacy group, said in a statement. “He claimed to be a staunch defender of the open Internet, but his Net Neutrality policies are full of loopholes and offer no guarantee that the FCC will be able to protect consumers from corporate abuse in the future.”

Genachowski would be the second FCC commissioner to announce his resignation this year: Robert McDowell said yesterday that he would step down from the five-member panel (which includes Genachowski). McDowell is the senior republican on the commission, and Genachowski is the senior Democrat.

This guy really let the industry push him around. When Meredith Attwell Baker left the FCC to become a Comcast lobbyist, he would not even condemn the move or acknowledge the revolving door aspect of it. He basically just said "We wish her the best of luck at her new position."

While I don't have ill will towards him, I do hope he resigns, and his successor is able to take a tougher stand when it comes to much needed policies to address the monopolies, and abuse of those monopolies that many ISPs have in their market, locked devices, unjustified caps, and other anti-competitive practices in the telecommunications industry.

I do not support regulatory officials going back to work as lobbyists, but this revolving door argument is for the most part self-fulfilling.

An individual who works as a regulator will most likely know the field that they're regulating if not they'll make a poor regulator.

So they're either left with two options.

Either retire altogether which is rarely feasible or go back and work in the field that they have the most knowledge of. Which is most likely the same field that they were regulating.

It doesn't matter what position a regulator takes in the field anything remotely "senior" is going to be looked at as revolving door.

The only real solution to this problem is simply make people who have no connection to the field whatsoever regulators, but the problem with this is that populist regulations don't always make good regulations.

Either retire altogether which is rarely feasible or go back and work in the field that they have the most knowledge of. Which is most likely the same field that they were regulating.

It's one thing to go back to the field (say, as a consultant or VP somewhere), but it's another to become an active lobbyist. If they don't like such a restriction then they should have thought about it before signing on to the government in the first place.

There is no reason to coddle these people. Someone who voluntarily works on the public payroll should be held to a higher standard. Otherwise seek a career in private industry like everyone else.

Either retire altogether which is rarely feasible or go back and work in the field that they have the most knowledge of. Which is most likely the same field that they were regulating.

It's one thing to go back to the field (say, as a consultant or VP somewhere), but it's another to become an active lobbyist. If they don't like such a restriction then they should have thought about it before signing on to the government in the first place.

There is no reason to coddle these people. Someone who voluntarily works on the public payroll should be held to a higher standard. Otherwise seek a career in private industry like everyone else.

We as tech savvy users often criticize policy makers for making decisions on topics they lack expertise in. You become an expert by being actively involved in your field. If you restricted someone's employment once they've held public office it would discourage those outside of politics from being involved. The same people who's opinion we desperately need. All that would be left is career politicians.

Either retire altogether which is rarely feasible or go back and work in the field that they have the most knowledge of. Which is most likely the same field that they were regulating.

It's one thing to go back to the field (say, as a consultant or VP somewhere), but it's another to become an active lobbyist. If they don't like such a restriction then they should have thought about it before signing on to the government in the first place.

There is no reason to coddle these people. Someone who voluntarily works on the public payroll should be held to a higher standard. Otherwise seek a career in private industry like everyone else.

We struggle to pass legislation getting people on government support drug tested, and you want to push stuff telling people where they can't work?

I've got mixed feelings. He stood up to AT&T swallowing T-Mo, but I feel like it still takes way too long to do a number of things that the FCC has to do now on a routine basis (things like approving spectrum swaps between companies can take 3 months to approve - IMO it shouldn't take long to run a report on the spectrum swaps, affected markets, and possible issues). And I certainly don't see much in the way of forward thinking from him.

If you restricted someone's employment once they've held public office it would discourage those outside of politics from being involved. The same people who's opinion we desperately need.

Again, I'm singling out lobbyists, not consultants. Now understandably it's often difficult to distinguish the two, but some firms exist primarily to lobby congresspeople for the sake of influencing policy or directing funds. I think the world would be a lot better off if those entities had much tighter restrictions on their activities and personnel.

We struggle to pass legislation getting people on government support drug tested, and you want to push stuff telling people where they can't work?

I never claimed it would be a realistic endeavor. But yes, there should be restrictions on people who have influence with government entities if they later move to the private sector. Otherwise let's just do away with voting altogether and have the most powerful corporations run the government. We're already halfway there.

Again, I'm singling out lobbyists, not consultants. Now understandably it's often difficult to distinguish the two, but some firms exist primarily to lobby congresspeople for the sake of influencing policy or directing funds. I think the world would be a lot better off if those entities had much tighter restrictions on their activities and personnel.

I agree; there should be greater restrictions on lobbying.

However, a person's position in a company is irrelevant. You can't just say to a person, "Work where you want, but forget all the professional and personal contacts you've made in DC for the past 5 years. Don't call or Facebook them. We are watching you."

Ideally we would see more scientists with management capabilities in these highly specialized positions. Indeed the previous Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, was "unique in that he published a research paper in the high-profile journal Nature while serving as Secretary of Energy. He ran the Department of Energy's (DOE) Lawrence Berkeley Lab for several years before stepping up to head the department."

These people would balk at holding public office if they could not later return to their field. Getting into politics is already daunting. Your solution would further discourage knowledgeable experts and leave career politicians focused only on statecraft and re-election.

You won't find me with much praise for the FCC, but I wish the guy well. As hard a time as I give the agency, I can't imagine the shit they get from all sides, and I don't blame the guy for bailing. It's got to be tough work to act in the public's interest in a fiery hellhole of industry "influence," capable of breaking someone with even the clearest of vision and greatest resolve.

I do not support regulatory officials going back to work as lobbyists, but this revolving door argument is for the most part self-fulfilling.

An individual who works as a regulator will most likely know the field that they're regulating if not they'll make a poor regulator.

So they're either left with two options.

Either retire altogether which is rarely feasible or go back and work in the field that they have the most knowledge of. Which is most likely the same field that they were regulating.

It doesn't matter what position a regulator takes in the field anything remotely "senior" is going to be looked at as revolving door.

The only real solution to this problem is simply make people who have no connection to the field whatsoever regulators, but the problem with this is that populist regulations don't always make good regulations.

In banking and other industries, employment concracts often mandate non-compete agreements for leavers. It would perhaps be a good idea to have similar agreements for regulators.

OT - I'm not sure why people are voting your comment down. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. It feels like the voting system in the discussions here at Ars has moved from an indication of whether a comment is "valid, informative, and/or useful to the discussion" to "I agree/disagree with what you're saying".

On the subject of lobbying, i think the problem lie in the fact that there is a whole industry around constant writing and changing of rules and regulations which creates a natural environment for rent seeking and regulatory capture.

I think it would help if the rules of the road were a lot harder to change and the process of changing the rules was a bigger deal. So much of the power of lobbying lie in the fact that so much of the rule making goes on behind closed doors or is mixed in with a river of other rules and laws so no one can hope to pay attention to all of it. If more people were paying attention it would be way harder for special interests to buy laws that favor themselves. Right now, it happens so often that people dont even notice.

Good riddance. This guy failed as the FCC chairman. He showed no backbone in the face of pushy telecoms and capitulated without question to almost anything they requested. He has no spine and obviously doesn't care about what is good for this country. Hopefully the next guy will be better.

Former Commissioner Baker has not lobbied the FCC since she left. In addition, the House Oversight Committee investigated the circumstances around her move and as far as I know, they found no violation of ethics laws:

On the subject of lobbying, i think the problem lie in the fact that there is a whole industry around constant writing and changing of rules and regulations which creates a natural environment for rent seeking and regulatory capture.

I think it would help if the rules of the road were a lot harder to change and the process of changing the rules was a bigger deal. So much of the power of lobbying lie in the fact that so much of the rule making goes on behind closed doors or is mixed in with a river of other rules and laws so no one can hope to pay attention to all of it. If more people were paying attention it would be way harder for special interests to buy laws that favor themselves. Right now, it happens so often that people dont even notice.

Agree -- and you've outlined the problem fairly well, but forgot a major point: the lobbyists are actually writing the laws. Here Mr. Senator or Representative puppet man, go get this passed.

... a person's position in a company is irrelevant. You can't just say to a person, "Work where you want, but forget all the professional and personal contacts you've made in DC for the past 5 years. Don't call or Facebook them. We are watching you."

...

It's completely fair to continue to judge someone's behavior once they've left public office because "half" the people never trusted them to begin with. Subsequent actions in the private sector can be a legitimate "see, I told you so" proof that actions while in office were less than ideal or fair. In short, give someone freer reign to act a certain way and they might just do it.

As was mentioned above, it's commonplace for non-compete clauses to affect hiring decisions and a corporate lobbyist is the very antithesis (regulated or not) of what a public official's duties should be focused on.

Either retire altogether which is rarely feasible or go back and work in the field that they have the most knowledge of. Which is most likely the same field that they were regulating.

It's one thing to go back to the field (say, as a consultant or VP somewhere), but it's another to become an active lobbyist. If they don't like such a restriction then they should have thought about it before signing on to the government in the first place.

There is no reason to coddle these people. Someone who voluntarily works on the public payroll should be held to a higher standard. Otherwise seek a career in private industry like everyone else.

We struggle to pass legislation getting people on government support drug tested, and you want to push stuff telling people where they can't work?

That's because the objections arose from knowing it wouldn't work (it didn't, the number of people who tested positive was so miniscule that it cost astronomically more to administer the tests), and that the testing firm had financial ties with the governor.

I guess he'll be 'unexpectedly' offered a consulting job for a few million a year in a little while. Hopefully he won't be as insulting as former FCC commisioner Meredith Attwell Baker who took a job at comcast four? months after approving their merger with NBC.

Summary of Genachowski's FCC : Nothing of note accomplished. Tried to please everyone by comprimising everything which left everyone unhappy, although some to larger degrees than others.

I feel like he was mentored by one of the aliens on Futurama (Neutrals from the Neutral Planet "I have no strong feelings one way or the other")

edit: I believe he cannot Lobby the FCC for two years, but he's free to lobby any other parts of the government.